Precedents for Holger Rune (and other ruminations)

[El Dude]

Riffing off of the Holger Rune conversation, here's a chart I posted awhile ago, updated to the present:

As the title says, it is the age every big title winner born from 1946 on won their first - whether a Slam, Masters, Tour Finals, Alt Tour Finals, or Olympics (so excluding players that might have won--or did win--a big title equivalent before the Open Era, like Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Ashe, etc). See the key for color-coding.

Rune is one of 13 players to win their first big title as a teenager. The other 12 include 8 all-time greats, a probable all-time great in the making (Alcaraz), one single Slam winner (Chang) who is probably among the better "second tier" players, and just two guys who never won Slams (Andrei "The Other" Medvedev, Alberto Mancini).

Medvedev won four Masters early on and reached one Slam final; Mancini had a short career and won three titles, two of which were Masters. Both weren't regulars in the top 10: Medvedev spent a total of 61 weeks in the top 10 over two seasons, 177 in the top 20, and 375 in the top 50; Mancini spent just 21 weeks in the top 10, 62 in the top 20, and 190 in the top 50.

In other words, rankings-wise, they weren't comparable to more recent "second tier" types like Berdych and Tsonga, and even guys like Monfils and Gasquet spent more time in the top 10/20 - who were not only more consistently in the top 10/20, but had much longer careers. Compare:

Weeks in top 5/10/20/50:
A Medvedev: 6/61/177/375
A Mancini: 0/21/62/190
T Berdych: 29/369/583/717
JW Tsonga: 12/260/523/581
R Gasquet: 0/146/421/763
G Monfils: 0/96/454/805

This is a bit of an aside and connected to another inquiry I had about the changing nature of "second tier" types and how we cannot really judge them by big titles, because they tend to pick up the scraps left behind by the elite. Guys like Medvedev and Mancini were basically clay specialists who played during a Rafa-less era; they had to compete with excellent clay players like Sergi Bruguera and Thomas Muster, and a bit later Carlos Moya and Gustavo Kuerten, but no Rafa (or Novak, Roger, and Andy). Whereas guys like Berdych and Tsonga had a hard time breaking through the impenetrable wall that was the Big Four. Again, the point being that while it is a bit easier to judge true elites by Slams and other big titles, it is more difficult to judge second tier players that way.

Anyhow, I post this chart to show the range of precedents for somewhat similar players to Rune. Note also the players in blue - they're all youngish players in the top 100 who haven't yet won a big title, and their current age (as of Feb 4). For instance, you can look at poor Felix Auger-Aliassime who, at age 23, has not yet won a big title, and speculate that his upside--at least according to historic precedents--is somewhere in the Nastase-Smith-Wawrinka range, what I sometimes call "near great" players.

It is too easy to say that because of this chart, Rune is likely to to be at least an ATG, as 8 of 11 (not counting Alcaraz) were true ATGs (and it is likely to be 9 of 12, or 75%). Certainly it seems likely he wins at least a Slam or two, but the Other Medvedev and Mancini remind us that sometimes players who breakthrough as teenagers and win a big title don't become true elite players, let alone all-time greats.

It is also interesting to note that every ATG won their first big title at age 21 or younger, that is before their 22nd birthday--Lendl and Connors being the late-bloomers. I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually see someone extend this by a year, but it does clearly show that the vast majority of elite players reach something close to their prime by age 21 or so.

The chart also illustrates just how unique Stan Wawrinka was: not only did he not win his first of three Slams until he was 28, but it was his first big title. He really is singular in Open Era history.

 

[El Dude]

Addendum: While I tried to emphasize that historical precedents only can take us so far, I do think they provide a fairly accurate range of probabilities. Let's take Holger's age of 19 for his first big title, including the players within one year (so age 18-20). We'll also assume that Alcaraz becomes a true ATG (6+ Slams).

Players (age 18-20): 21 excluding Rune
ATGs: 9 (43%)
Multiple Slams: 5 (24%)
Single Slams: 2 (10%)
Multiple big titles (no Slams): 3 (14%)
One big title (not a Slam): 2 (10%)

Lets take it a step further. Of those 20 players (now excluding Alcaraz too), here are their total Slam counts in descending order (using current counts for all players):

24, 22, 20, 14, 11, 8, 7, 6, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

Average Slam total: 6.4
Median Slam total: 2.5

In this case I think the median Slam total is closer to what can reasonably expected, as far as projecting a player who wins their first big title at age 19, as the average includes some pretty significant outliers to historic norms (Big Three). Meaning, 2.5 Slams is a reasonable over/under for expectation (and disappointment). In other words, if Holger wins 2 or fewer Slams, he can be seen to have underperformed, if 3 or higher, he performed well according to historic norms.

I personally would sum it up as follows:

7+ Slams: Greatly exceeded expectations
4-6 Slams: Exceeded expectations
2-3 Slams: Met expectations
1 or fewer: Didn't reach expectations

Again, all of this is based solely on historic precedents. Ultimately every player is different, but this provides a baseline to "customize" to the individual. In Holger's case, I think he has the talent to be a true all-time great, but at the risk of being overly obvious, it really comes down to whether he can harness it, mostly dependent upon his mental game and fitness. The talent and core skills are there to be special, but the mental game and fitness level is lagging behind.

In this regard, perhaps the most similar recent ATG is Roger Federer, who people forget was a bit of wildcard early on and didn't really put it all together until late in 2003 when he won his first Slam and then shortly after turned 22. Holger's about a year younger than Roger was when he won Wimbledon. I don't think it is a stretch to say that if Holger is going to reach ATG levels, he really needs to win that first Slam in 2024 or 2025 (I'm ok extending his window beyond his 22nd birthday next May, just to account for the "Stanimal" phenomena...but not by much).

While I sometimes criticize what I feel is an over-emphasis on raw Slam count for determining greatness, I do think winning a Slam is the most important benchmark to pass to open the door to true greatness. A before/after moment, if you will. With players like Alcaraz and Sinner (and to some extent, Medvedev) we can now truly extrapolate on how great they might become with some solid ground to stand upon, while for the rest of their peers, they still are in the realm of hypotheticals.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Addendum: While I tried to emphasize that historical precedents only can take us so far, I do think they provide a fairly accurate range of probabilities. Let's take Holger's age of 19 for his first big title, including the players within one year (so age 18-20). We'll also assume that Alcaraz becomes a true ATG (6+ Slams).

Players (age 18-20): 21 excluding Rune
ATGs: 9 (43%)
Multiple Slams: 5 (24%)
Single Slams: 2 (10%)
Multiple big titles (no Slams): 3 (14%)
One big title (not a Slam): 2 (10%)

Lets take it a step further. Of those 20 players (now excluding Alcaraz too), here are their total Slam counts in descending order (using current counts for all players):

24, 22, 20, 14, 11, 8, 7, 6, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

Average Slam total: 6.4
Median Slam total: 2.5

In this case I think the median Slam total is closer to what can reasonably expected, as far as projecting a player who wins their first big title at age 19, as the average includes some pretty significant outliers to historic norms (Big Three). Meaning, 2.5 Slams is a reasonable over/under for expectation (and disappointment). In other words, if Holger wins 2 or fewer Slams, he can be seen to have underperformed, if 3 or higher, he performed well according to historic norms.

I personally would sum it up as follows:

7+ Slams: Greatly exceeded expectations
4-6 Slams: Exceeded expectations
2-3 Slams: Met expectations
1 or fewer: Didn't reach expectations

Again, all of this is based solely on historic precedents. Ultimately every player is different, but this provides a baseline to "customize" to the individual. In Holger's case, I think he has the talent to be a true all-time great, but at the risk of being overly obvious, it really comes down to whether he can harness it, mostly dependent upon his mental game and fitness. The talent and core skills are there to be special, but the mental game and fitness level is lagging behind.

In this regard, perhaps the most similar recent ATG is Roger Federer, who people forget was a bit of wildcard early on and didn't really put it all together until late in 2003 when he won his first Slam and then shortly after turned 22. Holger's about a year younger than Roger was when he won Wimbledon. I don't think it is a stretch to say that if Holger is going to reach ATG levels, he really needs to win that first Slam in 2024 or 2025 (I'm ok extending his window beyond his 22nd birthday next May, just to account for the "Stanimal" phenomena...but not by much).

While I sometimes criticize what I feel is an over-emphasis on raw Slam count for determining greatness, I do think winning a Slam is the most important benchmark to pass to open the door to true greatness. A before/after moment, if you will. With players like Alcaraz and Sinner (and to some extent, Medvedev) we can now truly extrapolate on how great they might become with some solid ground to stand upon, while for the rest of their peers, they still are in the realm of hypotheticals.

Rune has the X factor, sometimes when reaching a 'high' like he did and reached No 4, we probably expected bigger things from him
There are factors, he needs to work on Focus ( shot selection) and he has to get his body stronger. I am against getting in another coach,, other posters have called for, as the 2024 season has just started, all players need 'stability' and to me Rune has had enough coaching changes in his young career.
I think we will have a clearer picture of Rune at the end of the 2024 season, hopefully he can work on those areas that need improvement.

 

[El Dude]

Rune has the X factor, sometimes when reaching a 'high' like he did and reached No 4, we probably expected bigger things from him
There are factors, he needs to work on Focus ( shot selection) and he has to get his body stronger. I am against getting in another coach,, other posters have called for, as the 2024 season has just started, all players need 'stability' and to me Rune has had enough coaching changes in his young career.
I think we will have a clearer picture of Rune at the end of the 2024 season, hopefully he can work on those areas that need improvement.

Yes, agreed - which is why I see him as a potential all-time great, but we're a long ways from it becoming actual. With Alcaraz, it seems like a matter of time - he could never improve but with generally good health, will eventually tally up half a dozen Slams or more. Sinner seems to have a strong case as well, though we haven't yet seen how he'll maintain his new level or how much higher he can go. With Rune, the talent is right there with the other two, and in some ways he has an explosive "wow-factor" beyond them. But not all such players actually become all-time greats. Marat Safin had that kind of talent. We know there's at least one devotee of the Church of David Nalbandian as GOAT. Plenty of players coulda/shoulda won more than they did, and there are so many variations of career trajectory. The point being, Holger's story is still TBD - much more so than just any player out there, with the possible exception of the even younger guys like Fils and Van Assche. But even including those guys, I can't think of player who has such a wide range of possible futures as Holger Rune, with a low-end somewhere in the Kyrgios-to-Tsitsipas range and a high end as the best player of the post-Big Three era. Most likely he settles in somewhere in-between.